On Marco Island: Independent Reporting, Documenting Government Abuses, Exposing the Syndicate, Historical Records of Crimes Against the Environment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

eLibrary - All Crimes and More Recorded!
Click this BIG button for ... All the evidence in one place! The documentation in pictures, documents and video of what was done to Marco Island .. and more!
Today is: Click here:Today's Meditation

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Super Poll #4 Results

The Marco Island Blog is proud to display the results of
Super Poll #4:

Quality of Life, Health, Safety & Support

- click on any image to enlarge -

- click on any image to enlarge -


The response was immense. The number of votes recorded were far greater than Super Poll #1 and far greater than we anticipated.

We are 95% confident that the above noted results represent the 13,825 registered voters of Marco Island with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.15%.

We found some results quite startling. To ensure the results, we further applied several sophisticated analytics algorithms to discount any irregular voting. And as some respondents found out, their attempt to vote several times were successfully prevented.

Many voters opted to have their poll sent to the council. On this regard we did hear from one councilperson during the voting. The councilperson stated that the emails sent to the council would not be read because some were anonymous. After thoughtful consideration it was decided not to remind the councilperson that the reason some Marco Islanders choose to remain anonymous is due to the present governance's track record of dealing with people that don't agree with them. But we did assure the councilperson that the voting was true and accurate.

When our analytics and data mining derive
near unanimity on an issue, there is an unquestionable mandate on that issue. If the government in power is on the opposite of that mandate, then they have lost the legitimacy of their office. Clearly, the quality of life question, being harmed by the dewatering effort, and not trusting the information coming from the present governance are so lopsided that the results speaks volumes.

When we come across a statistical dead heat, then their is near certainty that any government effort in that endeavour is an exercise in futility. Such is the results of "waterway ordinance" question (No. 6). Meaning - the government should get out of whatever it is they are doing since the community is evenly split and therefore the status quo - on this issue - is what's best. That is what should happen in a federalist democracy - but we all know that special interests will keep pushing the envelope - as is the case here. It is hoped that this analysis is used as the basis to drop the waterway brouhaha before it wastes even more money for no appreciable community benefit.

Lastly, this blog's favorite - and utterly surprising - is the results of question number 9. When 85% to 95% of the voters state that the present governance does not support the life and health of its constituents ... its as if the poll was taken in Cuba or N. Korea. Rest assured it wasn't - those residents are not allowed to use computers or vote. Thankfully we can - but they and us appear to have the same opinion of our respective governments. Incredible.


  • You have misrepresented the results of this data by not including the actual number of respondents. To imply that this is a scientifically valid study is just wrong. To be able to claim that this represents the 13,000+ Islanders requires a radomly selected group which you did not do. For example, if you had an independent consultant randomly select households who are year round residents to respond then you can claim this sample represents the island. Your results are obviously skewed and unfortunately therefore worthless.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 22, 2007 10:25:00 AM  

  • first of all, the explanation states "based on 13,825 registered voters" - it does NOT say that it represent 13,825 registered voters. in order to come up with the margin of error and the confidence level a population number needs to be used. the best representative number of a population is an official number - like the number of registered voters.

    to base the margin of error and the confidence level on some arbitrary number like the number of people that are on marco on full time or part time or sometime is folly.

    using the base - the 13,825 and the margin of error and the confidence level - 10th grade statistics can be used to compute the number of votes - so there is nothing hidden here.

    in fact, the actual number of votes was published in the newspaper that used these graphs on october 18, 2007. the number of votes is simply omitted here for no reason other than custom.

    generally, when one hears or reads the news, one hears or reads the sound bite "z% of the people polled said they would vote for so and so" but one rarely hears the number of respondents.

    if it makes people happier, the number is 353 - which if the reader is as astute as he/she/it thinks he/she/it is - then the reader will know that this is a huge number to represent a community of either 13,000 or 50,000 (the latter being some purported number of the people on the island during season). of course the reader knows that national polls that represent the electorate of nearly 200,000,000 poll approximately 1,100 people.

    and do these million-dollar polls ensure that the person they are polling is the registered voter? of course not.

    and lastly, to state that the results of this poll are worthless is outright wrong.

    over 300 people took the time to answer some questions. that's 300 people that took the time to answer questions about marco island.

    can someone have taken the poll that does not live on marco, never visited marco and could care less about marco and just did it as a joke because they had nothing better to do with their time?

    of course.

    is it likely? of course not - its not even probable.

    to state that the people contacted were not random is baseless and is therefore an incorrect statement. the people that were contacted to take the poll are people that are on email lists that have direct involvement with marco. the lists are all inclusive - even one list that was put together by the city of marco island of its supporters. the notice to take the poll was also sent to a list of approximately 8,000 - clearly all of these are not anti-present governance people. hence, it request to take the poll could not have been more random.

    did everyone contacted take the poll? no. but interestingly nearly many people did go to the page and opted not to vote. why did they not vote? perhaps to complain about the results - which is identical to those that dont vote in national or local elections and then complain about the election and the results.

    in a representative democracy where the elected officials care about their people this information is priceless. people concerned about marco island took the time to vote. for good or bad they noted their opinions.

    and if the present governance took their oath seriously the voices of these people would count for something.

    maybe those seeking the city council will not claim that the voice of concerned people is worthless.

    By Blogger Dr. Mario, at Monday, October 22, 2007 12:07:00 PM  

  • Please advise with which college you are (were) a tenured faculty.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 22, 2007 12:35:00 PM  

  • the purpose of this blog is to provide a venue by which people can state their comments, opinions, insights, research, etc.. these comments, opinions, insights, research, etc.. will stand or fall on their own - not based on the individual who made them. hence personal attacks are not tolerated.

    if you want to besmirch, attack, intimidate the messenger - especially against those that unlike you that post their real names - you should try the naples daily news blog or the marco eagle blog.

    By Blogger Dr. Mario, at Monday, October 22, 2007 1:35:00 PM  

  • You are using the Ph.D. designation with your name in order to add credibility to your data. You also state in your recent book that you are currently a fully tenured faculty member. There is no intention to 'besmirch' you.

    Please advise with which university are you a faculty member.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Monday, October 22, 2007 1:51:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home